I was a Liberal MP for 5 years 11 months as Trudeau prepared for the 2021 election. Although my re-election was very likely I did not run again because of my opposition to a Trudeau decision that was one compromise too many for me that began to accumulate early in my federal career. Of course this meant no guaranteed pension ( by one month). During the recent election i campaigned for the Conservative candidate in my old riding who won in an upset. I watch the antics of my former colleagues now mostly with disgust, knowing how many had been very critical about Justin Trudeau as I had been but their loyalty to a high salary and potential pension overrode principle and the soul of a once great party.
As someone who worked provincially and federally in various political staff roles over the course of my 45 year career, I found this discussion absolutely fascinating. I hope that those interested in a political career read Alex's book before deciding to run or work in a political office. If not they risk finding out how the system really works when they actually get the job and that can sometimes be profoundly disappointing. Patricia Bowles, West Vancouver
Very informative interview and post. Thanks to both Paul and Alex. I was CoS to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty during the Garth Turner episode. Flaherty tried to keep him in the caucus as long as he could, resisting early pressure from PMO to expel him. But Garth was 'not for turning'. His unstoppable personality force collided with Harper's immovable object. Gone Garth!
I rightly stand corrected. But I guess the point remains: political parties and the mafia share sufficiently similar characteristics that the metaphor works for both.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that what happened to Jane Philpott was emblematic of the cult of party loyalty. And the Trudeau liberals hurt themselves more than they realized at the time in behaving this way.
True, yet it is hard to see how trying to take down your leader publicly leads to a good outcome for the unhappy person. Jane Philpott was a huge loss.
I recall she stepped down from cabinet but wished to remain in the party as a sitting MP. The lengths they took to expel her from the party said way more about the insecurities of the PMO than anything else. Running a party with an iron fist may be great for dear leader but doesn’t always brings out the best in cabinet.
This. JWR went way over the line when she took all the dirty laundry and dumped it in the public square. The honourable thing to do as a member of Cabinet was to simply resign, which protests quite strongly but does not breach the oaths taken.
Phillpott publicly aligning herself with such radioactive behaviour killed all trust.
"It’s starting to be noteworthy how often people in government record their important conversations. Almost as though people were increasingly worried they might be lied about."
I guess it’s possible to view the same events with a different lense. I thought the folks trying to illegally pressure JWR were the ones who went way over the line.
But I genuinely believe folks being paid by the taxpayers should always behave such that public disclosure of their deliberations should not be scandalous.
As I understand it, the pressure was not to overturn her decision so not over that legal line. It was to ask her to explain it to the PM, as he was concerned about the jobs implications.
She had no interest in explaining, leading to the breakdown in trust and willingness to have her continue in the role.
This is what I gathered from all the reporting and reading between the lines.
Pressure to explain seems reasonable in the circumstances of a huge employer potentially having to leave the country when other countries were not punishing similar misdeeds as harshly.
I know it is late but you are really far out there. Hopefully it does not just snap. Those JP and JWR were complete fails. JWR must have figure she was going to be PM when she got rid of Trudeau. I listened to JP the next day on the current and I had second hand embarrassment for her with naivete displayed. Trudeau did all he could to keep them on board but they would have nothing to do with it. Well JWR sure abandoned JP quickly didn't she.
Thanks for the in depth interview Paul. There is one disconcerting note that Marland seems to raise. Is he suggesting that we should be moving towards a system of "trained" politicians? I find that idea, seemingly creating a professional political class that would rule us to be either Orwellian, a step back of 500-600 years to England, or both.
Certainly we have seen a progression of many good people, from municipal to provincial or federal elected positions, in many combinations, but suggesting you should be "qualified" by some academic process must be dismissed outright.
I understand why academic "like minds" might prefer "like minds" so everyone understands the system and expectations but that isn't a working model for democracy.
I just sat there reading and thinking , as I have for years, what a waste of money it is to elect and pay MP's or MPP's. And then I thought, because they are elected (and can be tossed) they are the only person who might, just might, act to intercede with the faceless bureaucracy for the individual Canadian. That's about the only time a member of parliament provides value to us, the great unwashed. We've adopted a presidential system where the only ideas and policies that count are cooked up at head office and our MP's are far from that hallowed ground.
I have been struck by the comparisons of UK and Canadian party systems. The governing party in the UK has an opposition within its own members, they are vocal and using the prepress and social media to harangue their leader over policy and to change leader to little positive impact.
Canada has little internal party opposition except for unnamed sources. Are we here any better off for this different approach?
I was really struck by his observation that "party discipline" has been effectively replaced by "message discipline" -- I think there's a world of implication in that. It seems to me that as parties become more deeply centralized and as power concentrates in a gravitational well at the core, the party's identity becomes more opaque and impersonal -- the party message becomes the party medium, if you will. It gets harder to figure out not just what principles the party actually has, but who's animating those principles, and towards what end.
Emblematic of this is (what seems to me, anyway) the increasingly overshadowing profile of the senior staff person who presents almost as a party co-leader. Out of many Canadian examples, Jenni Byrne is the most prominent; but I also think of Morgan McSweeney, chief of staff to Kier Starmer and author, as far as anyone can tell, of policy directions that few people in the party or country seem to like. To the extent these parties have all-encompassing messages around which they orbit, it doesn't look like those messages are being crafted by anyone who actually ran for office. I don't love that.
The parliamentary system was not supposed to be like this, but this is what it has become in Canada. Most voters vote for a party leader, not for their MP. In fact, many voters don't know (don't care) who their local candidate is.
So it then follows that the MPs support the leader. It was the leader who was actually elected to have the power, even if for most of us the leader's name does not appear on the ballot.
Thank you for this enlightening, though also disheartening, interview.
I myself pine for the days when a Paul Martin Sr or a Mitchell Sharp could go blow-for-blow with their party leader without having to worry about consequences akin to what happens in totalitarian party-states.
Canada is the poorer for the current political totalitarianism that Its main parties are presently in thrall to.
I have a hard time thinking that the phrase “cult of personality” applies here when very few of our political leaders (thankfully) are particularly known for their charisma. Just the same, this was a great read, and I hope the work of “pracademics” becomes more prevalent!
I was a Liberal MP for 5 years 11 months as Trudeau prepared for the 2021 election. Although my re-election was very likely I did not run again because of my opposition to a Trudeau decision that was one compromise too many for me that began to accumulate early in my federal career. Of course this meant no guaranteed pension ( by one month). During the recent election i campaigned for the Conservative candidate in my old riding who won in an upset. I watch the antics of my former colleagues now mostly with disgust, knowing how many had been very critical about Justin Trudeau as I had been but their loyalty to a high salary and potential pension overrode principle and the soul of a once great party.
As someone who worked provincially and federally in various political staff roles over the course of my 45 year career, I found this discussion absolutely fascinating. I hope that those interested in a political career read Alex's book before deciding to run or work in a political office. If not they risk finding out how the system really works when they actually get the job and that can sometimes be profoundly disappointing. Patricia Bowles, West Vancouver
Very informative interview and post. Thanks to both Paul and Alex. I was CoS to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty during the Garth Turner episode. Flaherty tried to keep him in the caucus as long as he could, resisting early pressure from PMO to expel him. But Garth was 'not for turning'. His unstoppable personality force collided with Harper's immovable object. Gone Garth!
“Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.”
How interesting that the metaphor chosen by this commentator, (a highly experienced apparatchik) has such a "Mafia connotation" to it.
It was a Churchill quote!
I rightly stand corrected. But I guess the point remains: political parties and the mafia share sufficiently similar characteristics that the metaphor works for both.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that what happened to Jane Philpott was emblematic of the cult of party loyalty. And the Trudeau liberals hurt themselves more than they realized at the time in behaving this way.
True, yet it is hard to see how trying to take down your leader publicly leads to a good outcome for the unhappy person. Jane Philpott was a huge loss.
I recall she stepped down from cabinet but wished to remain in the party as a sitting MP. The lengths they took to expel her from the party said way more about the insecurities of the PMO than anything else. Running a party with an iron fist may be great for dear leader but doesn’t always brings out the best in cabinet.
You recalled wrong. The entire caucus wanted them gone and JT tried to keep them on board but no, they would not abide.. Oh well..
This. JWR went way over the line when she took all the dirty laundry and dumped it in the public square. The honourable thing to do as a member of Cabinet was to simply resign, which protests quite strongly but does not breach the oaths taken.
Phillpott publicly aligning herself with such radioactive behaviour killed all trust.
"It’s starting to be noteworthy how often people in government record their important conversations. Almost as though people were increasingly worried they might be lied about."
https://paulwells.substack.com/p/your-call-may-be-recorded
I guess it’s possible to view the same events with a different lense. I thought the folks trying to illegally pressure JWR were the ones who went way over the line.
But I genuinely believe folks being paid by the taxpayers should always behave such that public disclosure of their deliberations should not be scandalous.
As I understand it, the pressure was not to overturn her decision so not over that legal line. It was to ask her to explain it to the PM, as he was concerned about the jobs implications.
She had no interest in explaining, leading to the breakdown in trust and willingness to have her continue in the role.
This is what I gathered from all the reporting and reading between the lines.
Pressure to explain seems reasonable in the circumstances of a huge employer potentially having to leave the country when other countries were not punishing similar misdeeds as harshly.
I know it is late but you are really far out there. Hopefully it does not just snap. Those JP and JWR were complete fails. JWR must have figure she was going to be PM when she got rid of Trudeau. I listened to JP the next day on the current and I had second hand embarrassment for her with naivete displayed. Trudeau did all he could to keep them on board but they would have nothing to do with it. Well JWR sure abandoned JP quickly didn't she.
Thanks for the in depth interview Paul. There is one disconcerting note that Marland seems to raise. Is he suggesting that we should be moving towards a system of "trained" politicians? I find that idea, seemingly creating a professional political class that would rule us to be either Orwellian, a step back of 500-600 years to England, or both.
Certainly we have seen a progression of many good people, from municipal to provincial or federal elected positions, in many combinations, but suggesting you should be "qualified" by some academic process must be dismissed outright.
I understand why academic "like minds" might prefer "like minds" so everyone understands the system and expectations but that isn't a working model for democracy.
I just sat there reading and thinking , as I have for years, what a waste of money it is to elect and pay MP's or MPP's. And then I thought, because they are elected (and can be tossed) they are the only person who might, just might, act to intercede with the faceless bureaucracy for the individual Canadian. That's about the only time a member of parliament provides value to us, the great unwashed. We've adopted a presidential system where the only ideas and policies that count are cooked up at head office and our MP's are far from that hallowed ground.
I have been struck by the comparisons of UK and Canadian party systems. The governing party in the UK has an opposition within its own members, they are vocal and using the prepress and social media to harangue their leader over policy and to change leader to little positive impact.
Canada has little internal party opposition except for unnamed sources. Are we here any better off for this different approach?
I was really struck by his observation that "party discipline" has been effectively replaced by "message discipline" -- I think there's a world of implication in that. It seems to me that as parties become more deeply centralized and as power concentrates in a gravitational well at the core, the party's identity becomes more opaque and impersonal -- the party message becomes the party medium, if you will. It gets harder to figure out not just what principles the party actually has, but who's animating those principles, and towards what end.
Emblematic of this is (what seems to me, anyway) the increasingly overshadowing profile of the senior staff person who presents almost as a party co-leader. Out of many Canadian examples, Jenni Byrne is the most prominent; but I also think of Morgan McSweeney, chief of staff to Kier Starmer and author, as far as anyone can tell, of policy directions that few people in the party or country seem to like. To the extent these parties have all-encompassing messages around which they orbit, it doesn't look like those messages are being crafted by anyone who actually ran for office. I don't love that.
Thanks so much for bringing this to us, Paul. I was a fan of “early” Garth Turner wish more of our MPs were mild iconoclasts.
That was a very interesting and informative read. Thanks Paul
The parliamentary system was not supposed to be like this, but this is what it has become in Canada. Most voters vote for a party leader, not for their MP. In fact, many voters don't know (don't care) who their local candidate is.
So it then follows that the MPs support the leader. It was the leader who was actually elected to have the power, even if for most of us the leader's name does not appear on the ballot.
Thank you for this enlightening, though also disheartening, interview.
I myself pine for the days when a Paul Martin Sr or a Mitchell Sharp could go blow-for-blow with their party leader without having to worry about consequences akin to what happens in totalitarian party-states.
Canada is the poorer for the current political totalitarianism that Its main parties are presently in thrall to.
Insightful conversations if somewhat dispiriting.
Marland; good insights, interesting perspective, as usual.
I have a hard time thinking that the phrase “cult of personality” applies here when very few of our political leaders (thankfully) are particularly known for their charisma. Just the same, this was a great read, and I hope the work of “pracademics” becomes more prevalent!